NAKUL PRASAD,HAZARIBAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), HAZARIBAG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 10/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 January 2026AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with defects and the assessee had not cured them. The assessee's request for adjournment was also rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. A defect memo was issued on 10/01/2025, and the defect remained uncured. The assessee sought an adjournment which was rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance with the defect memo and lack of cure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 05/01/2026Pronounced: 05/01/2026

Assessee represented by Adjournment Application Filed Department represented by Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR Date of hearing 05/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 05/01/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10322058 dated 28/10/2024 for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The appeal was filed on 10/01/2025. The defect memo has been issued on 10/01/2025. The defect is not yet cured. The appeal was posted for hearing today. The assessee has sought adjournment. The adjournment sought is rejected. As the assessee has not cured the defect, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed for defects.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →